Category: JHC

By Joe Harkins, Co-Chair, Joint Housing Committee.

Governor Wes Moore’s far-reaching and controversial legislation, the Starter and Silver Homes bill, will not pass in this session of the Maryland General Assembly. SB 36 failed to advance in the Education, Energy and Environment Committee of the state Senate, and HB 239 failed to advance in the Economic Matters Committee of the state House of Delegates. As previously reported, if enacted, this bill would have pre-empted the fundamentals of local zoning law, such as the definition of single family houses (to include townhouses), minimum lot sizes, and current setback and height requirements.

The stated goal of the bill was to increase housing at lower cost through “densification,” as required by the state, but enforced by local governments. Generally, counties and municipalities throughout the state opposed the bill, as did Montgomery County Executive Mark Elrich, although our County Council took no formal position. House Speaker Joseline Pena-Melynk   attempted to develop a compromise bill that could pass the House and be re-introduced in the Senate. This effort continued until recently, despite each chamber having missed Crossover Day (the conventional way bills pass both bodies). The Speaker’s efforts have now ceased, although the Governor’s Office is reported to be working on another version for next year’s legislative session. The 2026 session ends April 13^th. 

Two companion bills, also seeking to increase housing in the state, appear to be advancing toward final passage. The Maryland Transit & Housing Opportunity bill, SB 389/HB 894, aims to free up state-owned land for housing near rail transit sites, potentially adding an estimated 7,000 units in Maryland. As amended, the House bill passed second reading, the step immediately prior to passage, and the Senate bill will likely advance there, too. A conference committee would need to iron out any differences between the two bills as passed. The Housing Certainty bill, SB 325/HB 548, would allow developers to lock in building permit approval for three to five years (depending on the bill version). In effect, this prevents local governments from changing permitting requirements when construction is underway. Apparently, such changes are more common in counties other than Montgomery. These bills met Crossover Day requirements and appear likely to pass in the General Assembly this session.

Your Joint Housing Committee will continue to monitor any late-breaking developments in the legislature before April 13^th. And, we likely will be reporting to residents on housing issues next year, as well.        

The House and Senate committees assigned to review the Governor’s proposed housing legislation [See this News article for a description of the bills] heard from a variety of panels, each consisting of five organizations or individuals grouped into three categories in relation to the legislation: Favorable, Favorable with Amendments, and Unfavorable. 

Before the hearings were held, the Department of Housing and Community Development [DHCD], which is managing the bill on behalf of the Governor, met with a variety of stakeholders and agreed to a number of important amendments to the original bills. [See this News article that summarizes major amdts.]  Some testimony at the hearings might have been different if  the witnesses had known about the proposed DHCD amendments.  Many of the amendments addressed concerns raised by those testifying.

While all witnesses submitted written testimony, their oral presentations focused on the issues they considered most important. This summary is based on those presentations.

FAVORABLE

The position of the several departments supporting the legislation are listed here. Others testifying in favor of the legislation cited similar points.

• Maryland has a housing shortage-builders have not built enough in last 15-16 yrs.
• Gap is 100,000 homes, just for current population, according to DHCD.
• Only 49 % can afford median price of home; down from 75% in the prior decade.
• 90% say cost of housing is too high
• 88% say cost of renting is too high
• 36% considering leaving MD because of housing costs
  • ½ net domestic migration is 17-35 year olds
  • Housing and lengthy commutes are top two reasons for leaving
• Seniors have no viable options for obtaining a smaller, affordable home and leave, according to DHCD
• Solution that this bill supports: Build More Smaller Homes by Increasing Density
  • Town houses [THs] cost 1/3 less per square foot than existing single family homes [SFH], according to DHCD
  • Allow THs to be built in areas zoned for SFHs only
  • Limit required lot sizes
  • Allow owners to split lots
  • Have fewer requirements, require smaller setbacks, front, back, side
• More houses will provide a “relief valve” from cost of renting-would allow more renters to move to homes, which would open more rental options too.

FAVORABLE WITH AMENDMENTS

• Local authority must be preserved.
• It is better for the state to set targets and work together with local governments to achieve housing goals and let locals meet the need.
• Looser setbacks and more density allowance will encourage McMansions; unintended consequence
• There is no provision for affordability
• Affordable housing requires government subsidy
• Focus on results –Do not impose state rules on municipalities currently meeting or approaching housing needs
• Do not kill local input by ruling out master planning process
• MoCo works with COG numbers and has permitapprovals for enough units to meet need
• By Right process preempts years of county planning and implementation
• Adequate infrastructure must be in place
• S36 will destroy process of master planning and community input and will substitute By Right process.
• Focus on market means developers can sidestep county level incentives for affordability and workforce housing
• Better – partnership of state and local
  • Agree on targets for local implementation
  • Incentivize locals to develop growth plans with affordability provisions.

UNFAVORABLE

• Five foot side setback is too narrow; back setback too small
• Amendments increase complexity; why interfere with local requirements at all
• Respect HB1167 passed in 2025 session-reaffirmed zoning authority of munis.
• By right undercuts MPDU
• Cumbersome bill; there is not a single solution
• Does not work even with amendments
• Undermines coordinated planning
• Infrastructure must accommodate  local, county, and state requirements
• Goals must support local planning
• Bad to assign mandates down, but not accept responsibility up [at state level]
• Specific arguments from some municipalities:
  • They already are building THs
  • Bill strips them of authority
  • 2030 growth targets are being met
  • THs selling at or above median pricing
  • THs sell for more than SFHs
  • Conflicts with multiple local laws
  • Nothing addresses affordability
  • THs are luxury homes
  • Increased housing by 5% / year
  • OK for state to pressure us, but need time to meet targets
  • Cooperate with locals.